Wednesday, December 23, 2015

The military’s resistance dates back to the summer of 2013, when a highly classified assessment, put together by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then led by General Martin Dempsey, forecast that the fall of the Assad regime would lead to chaos and, potentially, to Syria’s takeover by jihadi extremists, much as was then happening in Libya. A former senior adviser to the Joint Chiefs told me that the document was an ‘all-source’ appraisal, drawing on information from signals, satellite and human intelligence, and took a dim view of the Obama administration’s insistence on continuing to finance and arm the so-called moderate rebel groups. By then, the CIA had been conspiring for more than a year with allies in the UK, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to ship guns and goods – to be used for the overthrow of Assad – from Libya, via Turkey, into Syria. The new intelligence estimate singled out Turkey as a major impediment to Obama’s Syria policy. The document showed, the adviser said, ‘that what was started as a covert US programme to arm and support the moderate rebels fighting Assad had been co-opted by Turkey, and had morphed into an across-the-board technical, arms and logistical programme for all of the opposition, including Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State.

Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. The jihadists, he said, were in control of the opposition. Turkey wasn’t doing enough to stop the smuggling of foreign fighters and weapons across the border. ‘If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic,’ Flynn told me. ‘We understood Isis’s long-term strategy and its campaign plans, and we also discussed the fact that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the Islamic State inside Syria.

Our policy of arming the opposition to Assad was unsuccessful and actually having a negative impact,’ the former JCS adviser said. ‘The Joint Chiefs believed that Assad should not be replaced by fundamentalists. The administration’s policy was contradictory. They wanted Assad to go but the opposition was dominated by extremists. So who was going to replace him? To say Assad’s got to go is fine, but if you follow that through – therefore anyone is better. It’s the “anybody else is better” issue that the JCS had with Obama’s policy.’ The Joint Chiefs felt that a direct challenge to Obama’s policy would have ‘had a zero chance of success’. So in the autumn of 2013 they decided to take steps against the extremists without going through political channels, by providing US intelligence to the militaries of other nations, on the understanding that it would be passed on to the Syrian army and used against the common enemy, Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State.

Once the flow of US intelligence began, Germany, Israel and Russia started passing on information about the whereabouts and intent of radical jihadist groups to the Syrian army; in return, Syria provided information about its own capabilities and intentions. There was no direct contact between the US and the Syrian military; instead, the adviser said, ‘we provided the information – including long-range analyses on Syria’s future put together by contractors or one of our war colleges – and these countries could do with it what they chose, including sharing it with Assad. We were saying to the Germans and the others: “Here’s some information that’s pretty interesting and our interest is mutual.” End of conversation.

The Joint Chiefs let it be known that in return the US would require four things: Assad must restrain Hizbullah from attacking Israel; he must renew the stalled negotiations with Israel to reach a settlement on the Golan Heights; he must agree to accept Russian and other outside military advisers; and he must commit to holding open elections after the war with a wide range of factions included.

Explosive repercussions? What do you have in mind? What are some projections?

As far as I can tell, in the current political climate...absolutely nothing will happen whatsoever. I've always said that Obama could eat a baby on live television, and no one would do a single thing. It could be revealed that elements of our government were planning to release an army from Hell to devour the populace, and late night TV would joke about it.

My prediction: The stench of corruption in this nation will get thicker and thicker, and absolutely nothing will happen whatsoever, because the current two relevant generations of people have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE WHATSOEVER what resolve and standing up for justice mean.

Outside forces--intervention from other nations upon either our interests, or upon us directly--would be the ones to act, if at all.

Otherwise, Hillary still doesn't go to prison, Obama's non-citizenship continues to get ignored, and the cucks will keep on cuckin'.

Putting someone at the level of Hillary into prison is historically a milestone from which a republic never recovers. If the cost of losing power is prison or worse, you make damn sure you don't lose power.

A coup, facilitated and agitated by a foreign power? I was about to say that I couldn't imagine anyone in the Army necessarily having the charisma and strength of will to actually go through with it, but then I remembered that it's all heavy politics at the top and there's probably a number of narcissistic sociopaths up there willing to "take one for the team" and become "leader of the free world".

I like the last clause, Magic Elections, snicker. As if Syria now has a unified propaganda machine and a dupe political party. If that last clause is not boob bait for SJW then the military is just as dumb

If someone at the level of Hilary DOESN'T go to prison for all of flat-out crimes she has committed(not just while she ran State), why in the hell should any of us out in the hinterlands consider ourselves to be bound by any law? And NOT consider other alternatives? I worked for the State Dept for ~10 years, and I know damn well if I had done a 10th of what she has done IRT her email crap alone, let alone taking bribes for favorable rulings for companies and countries, I'd be typing this from jail while serving my sentence for security violations for starters.

Yeah, and Syria was one of my posts from 2002-2005. It was a beautiful country calm and unthreatening to to man on the street.. I would walk to the embassy from the hotel and be greeted by the secret police standing in front of their headquarters every day.

I'm going to try my hand and suggest that what you mean is that world perception of these events will change the ability of the next American president (especially if its Hillary) to influence world events?

Latest studies show.....Gub'mint appointees have had limited exposure to The Prince, The Art of War, or The Prime Directive.PoliSci? Yes, I think my mother read The Cat in the Hat and the Bathtub Ring to me once.SEE: Washington Post "political" cartoons. The "influence" is unmistakable! CaptDMO

I've always said that if my friends (who work in various federal agencies, including one in DSS) or I (as a State intern or my brief federal background investigation stint) had done what she had done, we'd be in prison, and rightfully so! What was your track? Thanks for doing the hard slog, by the way!

@10 I don't have any trouble believing it either. The running joke in grad school was DIA was an agency in search of a mission. After reading this, as well as the memo that was declassified weeks ago, my respect for them has shot up some.

I like how DIA was tacitly hinting that our allies may share this with interested parties. I wonder if at SCI level there's very discrete contacts between DIA or elements of the military and Assad's government. Given how more often than not the left and right hands of our government do not know what they're doing, it wouldn't surprise me.

A16visitor@DSS. My mentor was an SES at the ODNI for a few years. Interesting guy. Had to come in out of the field because everywhere he went he kept getting caught in coups. He still swears it wasn't his fault...

Whereas if the consequence of endangering national security is you don't go to prison, then what, exactly is the consequence of doing so?

The city you're living in disappears in a mushroom cloud? Or the survivors of that string you up as one of the responsible parties (although note, for example, 9/11 perpetrator by omission Jamie Gorelick being on the investigating committee instead of being grilled for her insanity)? History books saying nasty things about you?

Do all crimes need to be punished?

Turing it around, can we afford to continue this way? The Gods of the Copybook Headings are waiting their turn.

My original point, though, is just to point out the cost of throwing people at Hillary's level, the ones at the very top, in jail. Maybe, considering the cost, it needs to be done anyway. But don't do it thinking you'll save the Republic.

@WKLWhereas if the consequence of endangering national security is you don't go to prison, then what, exactly is the consequence of doing so?

In the interests of not having powerful people feel threatened enough to topple governments and install themselves as dictators, yet provide incentive for them NOT to break the law... how about heavy, heavy fines instead? I think powerful people will be less threatened, and more just inconvenienced instead, and thus incentivized to avoid doing it.

I'd say that no one thinks throwing Hillary in prison would "save the Republic", because her crimes are hardly the only things endangering the republic.

not having powerful people feel threatened enough to topple governments and install themselves as dictators,

This is an insane argument. The charges against her are not trumped up; she knows damn well that she's guilty of things that would be criminal no matter who did them.

This is an insane argument. The only way this would prompt a general notion of "anyone who loses an election goes to prison" is if we're operating under the assumption that they're all guilty of similar crimes. And we're operating under the assumption that they're all guilty, then there's no point maintaining this farce; we might as well rig up the guillotine now.

No, if Sanders is the nominee, and he loses, nothing will happen to him. Everyone knows that. Even Obama, as bad as his administration has been, didn't go after Romney or McCain after the election was over. Trump wouldn't bother with Sanders, and neither would Cruz or anyone else on the GOP side. And why? Because Sanders wasn't keeping classified information on an unsecured private email server.

Isn't this essentially what some have called the Red Empire vs. the Blue Empire?"Anti-Americanism, in this interpretation, is the organizing ideology of an empire. Call it the Blue Empire. The Blue Empire is an American empire, and its headquarters are in Foggy Bottom and Cambridge and Times Square. Anti-Americanists have no idea that they are in fact serving the needs and wishes of the Blue Empire. But then again, why would they?

The Blue Empire's bitter enemy is the Red Empire, whose headquarters is in Arlington and (for the moment) Pennsylvania Avenue. The Red Empire is currently defending itself in Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan and Colombia - former clients such as Chile, Spain, Portugal, South Vietnam and South Africa having fallen to the Blue side. (The Red Empire still has strong clients in Asia, though, such as Japan, Taiwan and Indonesia.)"

This is from AUGUST 8, 2007 http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com.es/2007/08/secret-of-anti-americanism.html

I have found that the mantra Hillary is a felon functions as effective rhetoric, producing lip curls and weak protests with even the most doctrinaire of liberals. It works because, in their hearts, libs know that it's true and as a result, they won't counter by asking for proof. I think it very effectively demoralizes.

@ 26 to add to what you have already argued. The fundamental here is whether we are a country of laws or not. It has absolutely nothing to do with prosecuting the opposition. It has everything to do with everyone being treated equally under the law. If someone's status as a prominent politician indemnifies them then we are already a country that lives under tyranny and TWBT's argument is moot.

It isnt surprising that the DIA is sending intelligence to Assad through Israel as there is far more trade and interaction between Syria and Israel then most realize. Though the condition that Assad come to an accommodation over the Golan is unrealistic as its majority Jewish, a strategic necessity for Israel and most important of all a piece of our homeland. At the same time the land was once held by Muslims so Syria will never accept its liberation so that is a non-starter.

I'd say that no one thinks throwing Hillary in prison would "save the Republic", because her crimes are hardly the only things endangering the republic.

not having powerful people feel threatened enough to topple governments and install themselves as dictators,

Note the above line is from @21 Student in Blue.

This is an insane argument. The charges against her are not trumped up; she knows damn well that she's guilty of things that would be criminal no matter who did them.

At this point, being a member of the Militant Right is de facto criminal, and you can see how our betters are just itching to make it de jure illegal. The multitude of post-Nixon campaign finance "reforms" have also made running for national office pretty much illegal, and by now that's no accident. The only questions are "Can you hire a competent lawyer that's not beholden to the two major parties' establishments?" and "Will they pursue enforcement anyway?" Or find some other excuse; once he lost his election the authorities had no trouble throwing former Congressman George Hansen in jail on trumped up charges with no criminal penalties as the Supreme Court eventually took legal notice of. Since then I can't remember any Congressman going to bat like that for his constituents against an abusive IRS (I'll bet more than one member of the GOPe used that as an excuse to not thrash the IRS for its attacks on their mutual Tea Party enemies).

This is an insane argument. The only way this would prompt a general notion of "anyone who loses an election goes to prison" is if we're operating under the assumption that they're all guilty of similar crimes....

You're trying to tell me it's not a widely held at minimum minority opinion that "'they're' all guilty of crimes"??? We are living in different realities.

No, if Sanders is the nominee, and he loses, nothing will happen to him. Everyone knows that. Even Obama, as bad as his administration has been, didn't go after Romney or McCain after the election was over. Trump wouldn't bother with Sanders, and neither would Cruz or anyone else on the GOP side.

I apologize for not making my point clear: the consequences that would come from throwing Hillary in jail now or after the election would not come from her running for president in 2012, but from her position as either the family of a former president or being his co-president as they liked to say, "two for the price of one". She and her husband once held a great deal of power, putting her in jail now ... well, as I said, history tells us what tends to follow when the calculus becomes "lose power = lose everything".

The 'Deep State' or 'Ruling Class' continues to pursue the Wolfowitz Doctrine in its original form, the rewrite was just sugar coating, but that was obvious. The CIA unsurprisingly is the tool of the Deep State.

The goal in Syria was to topple Assad in order to build a pipeline that would weaken Russia's strategic position economically.

The Pentagon, appears to see this strategy as one that will likely cause another major war, similar to the oil embargo against Imperial Japanese, and so uses back channels to attempt to oppose it.

This may explain the SU-24 shoot down by Turkey and the antics of Erdogan afterwards. He acted as a tool of the CIA while not realizing that serious opposition existed from the US Military.

@WKLThis is an insane argument. The charges against her are not trumped up; she knows damn well that she's guilty of things that would be criminal no matter who did them.

Trumped up or not is irrelevant to the argument.

This is an insane argument. The only way this would prompt a general notion of "anyone who loses an election goes to prison" is if we're operating under the assumption that they're all guilty of similar crimes. And we're operating under the assumption that they're all guilty, then there's no point maintaining this farce; we might as well rig up the guillotine now.

That wasn't the point of the argument either. The point was, maybe it's better off that Hillary doesn't lose all her power and get thrown in the slammer, because of the message that would send to other people in power, that if you don't have enough power to cover your tracks, you will lose everything, thus it's better to just install yourself as a dictator for life, else you will lose everything.

And a lot of those people are sociopathic narcissists, don't think it's not appealing to them.

Maybe I am missing out and should get a job as a senior adviser to the JCS. I thought all that was pretty obvious even back when it started. And I have no HUMINT in Syria.

I think I would have had a better chance of leading the CIA as I have the same qualifications as the Secretary of the Army. Well Eric Fanning has more experience than me down by the railroad tracks.

As far as I can tell, in the current political climate...absolutely nothing will happen whatsoever. I've always said that Obama could eat a baby

Sounds like a job for a Trump Tweet

Putting someone at the level of Hillary into prison is historically a milestone from which a republic never recovers

So for her to get Brietbarted is the best we can hope for?

The fact that no one at CIA lost their job over 9/11 tells you everything you need to know about it.

Like people getting bonuses for patients dying at the VA

well, as I said, history tells us what tends to follow when the calculus becomes "lose power = lose everything"

There has to be Secrete Service Agents dreaming of putting a slug in Bath House Barry's head.

OT: One benefit for women on the front lines is that when ever a Major Dyke gets killed people will hear about it from Bath House Barry, STR8 YT father of 6 not so much.

"- A female officer in the Air Force, who was one of the first openly gay service members to get married, was identified on Tuesday as being among six U.S. troops killed by a suicide bomber near Bagram air base in Afghanistan."http://news.yahoo.com/york-city-detective-among-six-u-troops-killed-142020630.htmlhttp://news.yahoo.com/white-house-expresses-condolences-families-six-u-troops-223141865.html

This is actually comforting. It means that, once again, the military is the most functional and sane part of the government.

Yes, and now you know why it is inevitable that as the USA follows the predictable path of every banana republic, it will eventually experience a military coup de tat and, for good & ill, be ruled for a time by an organization whose structure mostly mimics that of the late USSR. The .mil is a centrally planned, rigidly hierarchical monopoly

Can't say I'm surprised. The Obama administration disdain for the military is pretty well known. I mean, Obama has had two Sec Defs come and call him out after they left their office? That certainly isn't normal.

You also have to wonder how bad, and perhaps how long, the rift between the CIA and US military is. It makes you wonder about the whole Patraeus scandal.

What's really disconcerting is that if the distrust between the military and the political establishment becomes great enough you have the raw ingredients that either form a coup, civil war or some soviet style purging.

The biggest implication might be that the Russians, Chinese and others will now see the U.S. as more fundamentally fractured. There was always political battles (Ted Kennedy asking the Soviets for help in fighting Reagan comes to mind), but the military always followed orders. As soon as the military gets its own ideas a lot changes. Take a Ron Paul or a Pat Buchanan on foreign policy. These guys are political non-entities as far as the Russians and Chinese are concerned. If the military is willing to act on its own, however, suddenly these guys and the tens of millions, upwards of 100 million or more Americans who support them, become a major political force. Instead of dealing with progressives like Obama or Bush, Russia and China could deal directly with the U.S. military, business interests and more local political groups. No American president is going to be able to go to war if the heartland, which supplies the main fighting force, opposes him.

Overseas, if the military is no longer following CIA or White House policy, it means Pax Americana is unofficially over today. No need to talk about American decline and waiting for Pax Americana to end after losing a war or an economic crisis. It is over, the military no longer believes in it.

@39 a military coup de tat and, for good & ill, be ruled for a time by an organization whose structure mostly mimics that of the late USSR.

Not so much. The USSR mimicked the forms of a military dictatorship, but added some innovations - setting up its own "checks and balances" between the Party, the Army, and the Security Police. Previous dictatorships (and other authoritarian rulers) had separate secret police from the Army, and I think putting political commissars in the Army was older than that, but the deliberate setup of the Party and the secret police to keep the Army from taking over was a Communist innovation.

If the U.S. experiences a military coup in the near future, the Army won't be fully infiltrated by any Party, and if the coup leaders are smart, they'll wipe out the CIA post haste.

@41 Overseas, if the military is no longer following CIA or White House policy, it means Pax Americana is unofficially over today. No need to talk about American decline and waiting for Pax Americana to end after losing a war or an economic crisis. It is over, the military no longer believes in it.

I'm not sure that Hersh is documenting the military losing faith in "Pax Americana" so much as their pushback against the civilians wrecking it. I think (hope, at least) that the military believes in maintaining world order, but thinks Obama is damaging it rather than advancing it.

the Military vs the CIA is something that I think a lot of us have had rattling around in the backs of our heads for a while. To say the least anything even remotely hinting at such a break is deeply disturbing.

The mind very much shies away from the obvious implications.

and yet... the reason its been on our minds... is that it is likely unavoidable.

The CIA keeps deliberately creating messes the military is tasked with cleaning up.

And if so, then CIA is largely behind Patriot Act and CISA (Patriot Act 2), which benefits them greatly as far as consolidating power. And if that is true then a soft coup has already been in place for over a decade.

In one direction I wonder if https://www.oathkeepers.org/about/ has become more powerful than I expected it would.

In the other direction I wonder if (cue conspiracy theory) all the rhetoric between the US, Russia, China etc is simply a facade. And is done so each country benefits from selling weapons in beating the drums of war. Then there would be no actual animosity between countries, just good acting jobs to increase military profits.

The CIA keeps deliberately creating messes the military is tasked with cleaning up.

The CIA has been a shadow government (unelected, unaccountable and basically an autocratic country with the USA) since the late 1950's.

Orwell's insight is axiomatic; there has always been and always will be a High, a Middle and a Low. In our modern times of saturation-level propaganda and mythology, most of the High is invisible. Those highly placed at the CIA are certainly part of the Deep State. Doubtless that nepotism is astonishingly common in Langley.

This is why elections are so meaningless. The "real government" is bureaucratic and permanent, and it can and does outlast any attempt at reform. Any evolving conflict between factions within that permanent bureaucracy is simply a signal that a coming war over dwindling resources (taxes, borrowing capacity, etc.) will be a battle of the Titans.

Obama's purges among the military leadership are well known, as is the rank and file's general disdain for him and his policies. We don't and can't know, however, just how far down the personnel changes in the Agency go. They have a bureaucracy just like any other part of government, and fight as viciously as anyone else for their turf. FWIW, the various mil attaches at embassies I served at were always involved in turf wars with other federal agencies, and none of them (mil, State, CIA, DEA) were particularly good about sharing information.

The underlying issue is who does the hiring. Who assesses new case officers as well as new State weenies? Back in my day, those running the A100 course (State Dept. beginners class) were mostly washed up FSOs who hadn't received promotions. That does not mean bad or incapable people, merely they weren't part of the "in" team and had no impact on policy. That wasn't the case with the CIA, but again, change the bureaucracy via executive branch hiring and appointments, and you can effect major changes in that agency's mantra and mission. So I wonder just how far down Obama's minions have burrowed.

@16 LOL! My best friend from grad school is DSS now, actually, just got done with his first posting! He's heading somewhere interesting in May.

I can imagine your mentor was an interesting guy, especially given he was at ODNI. I'm sure the coups weren't his fault, heh heh. What were your other postings out of curiosity? I'm wondering if we didn't run into each other.

@31 Have you seen that special on Showtime, The Spymasters? Eye opening, to say the least.

@57 Sorry to hear they were always at war. To me, it's hard to fathom. It seemed like we were all on the same side. However, the whole federal background thing....jeez, it was us (the field investigators) vs. everyone. My guess isn't that his minions have burrowed so far as that he enjoys a certain level of support amongst many of the rank and file.

@1 FALPhil: "Maybe I am missing out and should get a job as a senior adviser to the JCS. I thought all that was pretty obvious even back when it started. And I have no HUMINT in Syria."

Yeah, I got some of the details wrong, but my first take was the US should not back any "rebels", and find an opportunity to partner with Russia to help Assad in exchange for making him our collective bitch in the region.

The wave of feelgoodz and goodwillz around the world from a joint US/Russian "peace" initiative in the ME could be awesome. I wondered who would possibly be opposed to such awesomeness?

"A former senior adviser to the Joint Chiefs told me that the document was an ‘all-source’ appraisal, drawing on information from signals, satellite and human intelligence, and took a dim view of the Obama administration’s insistence on continuing to finance and arm the so-called moderate rebel groups. By then, the CIA had been conspiring for more than a year with allies in the UK, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to ship guns and goods – to be used for the overthrow of Assad – from Libya, via Turkey, into Syria."

This is an almost exact replay of Iran-Contra, and of Laos before that.

Anyone thinking it is a coincidence, that Turkey is also the single largest trans-shipment nexus for Afghani opium bound for Europe, is either willfully blind or actually stupid.

After reading the article and as I watch the current election cycle evolve, it seems to me that a power vacuum is forming in the US. No political party has any credible candidate as they're all shallow, hallow people with very little in the way of admirable character. Call it a terminal weakness masked by hubris and those providing cover for them.

This weakness is not limited to just the presidential candidates. Amoral and villainous minions infest all of Washington and into this morass, the intelligence agencies will challenge the military for supremacy. Sides will be chosen and it promises to be bloody. The New Civil War will be birthed.

There's a yuuuuuge difference between jailing an outgoing politician because you disagree with the policy decisions he made (e.g. all the crap about Evil Bush and Cheney), and jailing an outgoing politician for violating the clear letter of the law as to how they are to conduct their office. Ask any number of former governors of Illinois...

There's a yuuuuuge difference between jailing an outgoing politician because you disagree with the policy decisions he made (e.g. all the crap about Evil Bush and Cheney), and jailing an outgoing politician for violating the clear letter of the law as to how they are to conduct their office. Ask any number of former governors of Illinois...

Those former governors of Illinois were all bagged by the higher authority of the Federal government, right? (I'm pretty sure don't have to double check that.)

The case we're making is that this changes when it's the very highest authorities, the ones who, in theory, are in a position to continue maintaining their power.

Note also that you're dialectical argument is being implicitly made to highest level people who seldom, if ever, get there using purely dialectical methods.

What this means is the US military is working with Russia in a proxy war against the CIA US executive and Mossad in a war of long term protection of Israel.

Sorry. If this is an onion its only one layer. We still want to know Fukushima, Tianjin, Flight 370, 17 and MetroJet. And as pointed out above the no-one who ordered 911 has hung.

Having said that well done DIA. At least you have spotted on real enemy.

Nuke the Kaaba and you'll get a five star rating. It's not my business to know unknowable things but, Jesus has to be the actual strategic goal. Thy kingdom come, makes eternal armies work like soldiers.God bless everyone for the brilliant inputs. Merry Christ-MASS if I don't make it back.

Forgive me if this was mentioned previously (don't have time to plow through the comments) but the military has paid a heavy price for their disobedience/honesty. Upwards of 200 senior officers have been removed from their posts and Sheik Obama is trying everything possible to destroy the current military culture which is what woman in all combat arms is really about. No one expects enlisted ranks to have many (if any) women infantrymen... but the officer corps is a different deal all together. Sheik Obama and his minions are trying very hard to undermine the fabric of the military and bring it to heel. Of course it won't work, the Enlisted will slaughter officers without a care if it comes to that, not to mention using the social justice matrix to fight a war is suicide... not that the PhDs will understand that ("the unwashed could never survived without our brilliant direction")but it surely is going to be exciting.

Forgive me if this was mentioned previously (don't have time to plow through the comments) but the military has paid a heavy price for their disobedience/honesty. Upwards of 200 senior officers have been removed from their posts and Sheik Obama is trying everything possible to destroy the current military culture which is what woman in all combat arms is really about.

Ignoring the fact that Seymour Hersh is not the most reliable of reporters, counterbalanced by, for once, an entirely plausible story, I was under the impression that Obama's moves against the military far preceded this alleged under the table disobedience to him, or at least the spirit of what he's trying to accomplish (we can get into interesting questions of Obama apparently not actually making his real policies explicit, probably not making formal orders to the military which could come back and bite him, etc.).

"I was under the impression that Obama's moves against the military far preceded this alleged under the table disobedience to him"

Yes and no. He's now gone into the business of ending careers, not just promoting what he sees as his people. The Syrian revolt got a lot more personal than many realize. The military believes at the highest levels that Sheik Obama, along with some in the CIA, has illegally tried to install "extremist" elements in Arab countries. The military believed they had achieved some kind of "balance" in the Mideast after Bush... and Obama purposely destroyed it. That goes back to Libya and Benghazi in particular. But the sudden, and it was very sudden, announcement that they were opening all jobs to woman was the "fuck you" of all fuck yous by The Sheik and his minions. The military had done some very extensive and honest testing on the subject and had plenty of data that it wouldn't work out. Obama had also put an awful lot of under secretaries and even secretaries of the services in charge who had no prior military experience (mostly social justice whores). He no longer trusted the military leadership even though the so-called "papers" the military was issuing had the highest security ratings. General officers from my experience are political animals in the gravest extreme. They can't be trusted... but they are also fairly well versed in history and military science if not always the art. In 2014 I had a conversation with two General Officers, one retired and the other just denied a major command he was originally supposed to get. They both said, "We're being asked to things that will fail terribly and we're not going to be left holding the bag."

Obama's history with Egypt preceding this is also illuminating, from his June 2009 Cairo speech where he insisted on including the Muslim Brotherhood, to his siding with the Muslim Brotherhood when they were tossed out of control in 2013. Which side he's generally taking for real in all this is pretty clear to me, and according to these accounts to the military.

While your point about these generals being political animals is well taken---on reason I decided not to try to make a career in the military---I suppose it doesn't hurt that they can argue they are trying to fulfill their oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...."

Banana republic is a pejorative political science term for politically unstable countries in Latin America whose economies are largely dependent on exporting a limited-resource product, e.g. bananas. It typically has stratified social classes, including a large, impoverished working class and a ruling plutocracy of business, political, and military elites.[1] This politico-economic oligarchy controls the primary-sector productions to exploit the country's economy.[2]

Indeed, I think you capture his adventures with Egypt correctly... and make Occum's razor your guide. I have a suspicions that many in the military live with this terrible fear that they are soon going to have to fulfill their said "oaths". It's not something they want to do... but it may become necessary. I don't blame them for being afraid of that. Despite what some may feel about the power hungry inclinations of men most military officers operate with a clear and distinct direction from above. To be adrift in the sea of the unknown is terrifying to them... and me.

Yeah, and Syria was one of my posts from 2002-2005. It was a beautiful country calm and unthreatening to to man on the street.. I would walk to the embassy from the hotel and be greeted by the secret police standing in front of their headquarters every day.

Unthreatening to you. The problem is there were Syrians in the basement of that building having nails pounded into their kneecaps. Foreign powers lit the match, but Assad left around a whole bunch of dry tinder.

@77 EricWhat makes you think that having a safe nation did not require pounding nails into some kneecaps? Arabs are not Europeans, and Moslems are not Christians. Arab nations are not governable in the Western sense.

It is information like this that makes the strict non-interventionist foreign policy of someone like Ron Paul look more and more attractive. It's not so much that I don't care about what is going on or that I am callous to the horrific crimes within Islam. It is more an issue with not trusting my own central government to fix (or even mildly repair) any of it. I believe they are far more likely to make matters worse in the long run.